80. are you a "hate-filled Christian"?

102. Someone's a bit sensitive.

It's a discussion board.

So discuss.

People are not always going to agree with you--no need to get so personally enraged and use words directed at a person like "pathetic" and "you have nothing to say" and "you fall back on infantile mockery" and "your thoughtless way of thinking" and "really contemptible" and "damnable" and "hateful to the core."

I mean, wow--that takes "snippy" to a whole new level! You don't like anyone finding YOUR words absurd with a fast laugh and a smilie, but you sure like to serve up a heaping helping of scorn yourself!

How about a simple "I don't agree with you?" You could even throw in one of these guys if you'd like, to express your degree of disagreement or or even or -- but really, all that VERY personal invective (calling someone contemptible and hateful because they don't see an issue YOUR way?) says way, WAY more about you than perhaps you intended to reveal. You don't come off well, just in case I'm not being clear, here. It's not your perspective on the religious v. atheist issue that is the problem, it's the nasty way you express yourself.

Don't even give me the "Waah, he teased me FIRST" excuse. As my grandmother used to say, "If (insert name of neighborhood kid-leader) jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?"

The view is grand from the high ground.

Replies like yours, with all the anger and invective, are why we have a RELIGION forum, to contain all that "stuff" that explodes like a Mentos in Coke anytime The Big Gee/Lack of Same is discussed!

46. "When did we see you hungry...?"

Matt-25:33-40

The Son of Man will put the sheep (good people) on his right and the goats (bad people) on his left. "Then the king will say to those good people on his right, 'Come. My Father has given you great blessings. Come and get the kingdom God promised you. That kingdom has been prepared for you since the world was made. You can have this kingdom, because I was hungry and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was alone and away from home, and you invited me into your home. I was without clothes, and you gave me something to wear. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you came to visit me.' "Then the good people will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and give you food? When did we see you thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you alone and away from home and invite you into our home? When did we see you without clothes and give you something to wear? When did we see you sick or in prison and care for you?' "Then the king will answer, 'I tell you the truth. Anything you did for any of my people here, you also did for me.'" (ERV)

48. Yep, One of my favorites.. And something I try my best to live by.

78. That may sound really nice, but other parts of the Bible are truly sickening and should be condemned

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 NIV)

The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open." (Hosea 13:16 NIV)

that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, and none of the condemned things are to be found in your hands. Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger, will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. He will increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your ancestors— (Deuteronomy 13:13-17 NIV)

I challenge any Christian to defend these verses, they are reprehensible and we need to admit the Bible is not a book we should be embracing.

129. Illiterate goat-herders

108. But we should remember that, technically, the OT...

...is just for the Children of Israel. The Jews. That's what Christians either forget when they want to hold up signs condemning gays or wanting the 10 commandments in courtrooms, or forget about when they don't want to keep kosher or want to condemn gays but not condemn themselves given that half of what they're doing condemns them as much as it does those who engage in homosexual acts.

The OT is the story of one group of people who worship one particular god: Yahweh. This god says it. Basically, all descendants of Abraham--of the twelve brothers and thus of the twelve tribes (and/or converts to that religion) are his. He doesn't say, "I'm the only god there is and all people are mine." He's just the god of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden--when they leave, they find other people. Other people created by other gods. In fact, the whole Passover story is about how Yahweh, more or less, reclaims his people and kicks the asses of the Egyptian gods (or at least the Pharaoh--a god incarnate according to the Egyptians; don't forget, Pharaoh's priests can turn staffs in to snakes, just like Moses. The big deal isn't Moses' "power" given to him by god, but that his snakes eat the snakes of the priests. i.e. his god is more powerful than any of their gods).

The laws you list are all laws for Jews. Not anyone else. And the OT god is for the Jews, not anyone else. According to the OT, everyone else can have whatever god they like. The OT god is meaner and more powerful, but he's for Jews only.

This, alas, is either conveniently remembered or forgotten by certain Christians when they need/don't need the OT to back up certain arguments.

181. The way I understood it...

The OT was important as it gave their religion more credibility. Otherwise there was not historical background or development for them to use. They would had been considered a totally new religion that just came out of nowhere.

126. When Christians stop quoting the Old Testament I will stop quoting it

As long as they are insisting we live our lives based on the ten commandments then I am going to ask if we should embrace other Old Testament positions as well. It seems many Christians embrace the Old Testament when it comes to the creation story but then get angry when the less convenient passages are quoted.

128. And may I also add...

If it is not ghastly for Christians to quote the Bible to me (and the Old Testament is frequently quoted by Christians) then there is nothing ghastly about me quoting it back. If people want to express their beliefs to me then I have every right to express my beliefs as well, I am tired of the notion that people have the right to advocate religious beliefs but somehow it is wrong to express opposing beliefs.

130. the pharasees did that to Jesus-

and he said:
1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’”

He was pretty damn good at turning the scriptures right back on those who invoked the law, while neglecting the love-

172. How does the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. fit into your blanket condemnation

of all Christians? Or Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Or Sophie Scholl, the Berrigan Brothers, the Rev. Jessie Jackson, the Wilmington 10? They all identified themselves as Christians, and yet all of them lived lives of progressive activism, all of them were imprisoned for their beliefs, several of them were even murdered for speaking truth to power and standing with the poor and oppressed. You're saying they weren't really Christians? Or that, contrary to their own statements, they were wrong about the core of their own beliefs?

Lumping all Christians into one category is like saying all socialists side with Stalin. When I encounter a self-identified socialist, I don't start quoting Lenin and Marx at them, nor would I toss out a copy of the Gulag Archipelango to discredit single payer health care. Forgive me for what is perhaps a clumsy analogy, but I figure all of us are individuals, and all of us -- within certain limits -- get to define our own beliefs. If Martin Luther King says he's a Christian, I take him at his word. In fact, more than that, I closely consider what he's saying, since he was obviously a smart guy, had put a lot of thought into his beliefs, and had drawn from them a courage and commitment I frankly find quite humbling.

As an aside: there are some Christians who count only the actual words of Christ as being the core of their theology--everything else is historical context. Even then there is debate, since the Gospels were written decades after Christ was executed, and three of the four recognized Gospels (among dozens that were written) were evidently based an an earlier text, called "Q", which is considered more authoritative than what was allowed to be passed down by the Church oligarchy (which by the time of Constantine had been utterly co-opted by the Roman imperium).

I take this minister at this word when he says he's a Christian, and believes what he wrote on that sign. More than that, I praise his courage, and gladly welcome him into whatever part of the progressive movement he'd care to join. I think, even as a crass political calculation, this makes more sense than to stereotype and condemn tens of millions of people for beliefs they evidently don't share, for a label which evidently can mean very different things to different people.

175. I can admire a person's deeds and disagree with their religious beliefs

I admire all the people you mentioned but think they were wrong to embrace religion, I never claimed all Christians were bad people. Many Christians do great things, but that does not mean the Bible should not be criticized.

178. I think everything should be open to criticism

and critical thought, including religion and philosophy. There are many Christians who would agree. But there's a difference between critical thinking, and a reflexive rejection or attack of beliefs different from your own, which is what I see in a number of these posts. A part of that attack is the straw man argument I see repeated here --the lumping together of all Christians, indeed all religious people, as if they all believe and act the same. Like I said, it's like saying all socialists are in league with Stalin.

If Martin Luther King, or Sophie Scholl, or Mahatma Gandhi saw their political work growing out of their spirituality, I for one would be unwilling to say "they were wrong to embrace religion." From what I've read, they all saw their spirituality as strengthening their commitment to social justice, so that they didn't do their great deeds of courage IN SPITE of their religion, but BECAUSE of it. A few days ago President Obama said that if Ronald Reagan were alive today, today's Republicans would reject them. I have a feeling that if Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi were alive today, there are some on DU who would reject them as well, only because of their religion. It's a disheartening thought.

I think progressives are mistaken to reject all religious belief out of hand. If nothing else this is our cultural heritage, for good and ill, and by reflexively rejecting it we leave it to the reactionaries to define what is "Christian," what is "moral," what is "religious." We abandon a powerful tool, and reject millions of well-intentioned people who might be convinced to join us if not for the contempt with which we view their beliefs.

And so I would rather accept the minister who posted this sign as a possible ally, and meet him on his own ground, and try to work with him, rather than push him aside. I would rather applaud his call for tolerance, and wish him luck spreading this message, than try to pick apart what I presume to be his beliefs.

58. That is total bullshit.

And I call you on it.
But I don't have the energy to show you how wrong you are...or to show you how right that sign is...but I will say this...Atheist are far closer to eternal life than are hateful Christians.
Jesus was a practicing Jew...a Rabbi...and his strongest condemnation were of the established Jewish religious leaders...

171. And that is exactly what I said.

He was borne a Jew and so he was in the Jewish religion...had he been born today he would be a Christian and the religious Christians of today do and say the same things as those of his time...and it is logical to assume he would have the came condemnation for them.

176. I see...and totally agree

182. How would he be a Christian if he was born today?

More likely he would be either a Jew or a Muslim depending on where exactly in the Middle East he was born and raised. If a Muslim, the fundies might be demanding god to strike him down dead if they felt he was being blasphemous.

74. Sounds like you are deciding who the true Christians are.

If one wants to say that hateful Christians are not true Christians it is just a word game, since there could be no category of "hateful Christians"

OK, fair enough. But then you say this:

Yes, a lot of people prefer the good works stuff and skip over the hell stuff, and everyone has that right. But they are not Christians.

So cthulu2016 has now decreed who the true Christians are, based on cthulu2016's definition of Christianity. But as you know, there are lots of people who consider themselves Christians who would disagree with your definition of Christianity.

I find it puzzling that you would feel the need to define a very positive message, posted by an actual Christian Church, as not Christian.

Back when I was a Christian, the Senior Pastor at the church I attended (I United Methodist church, BTW) stood up on Sunday morning in front of the entire congregation and delivered a sermon arguing that non-Christian religions were different paths to the same God, and that non-Christians can get into heaven. Incidentally, he was also the first person I ever heard use the term "fundy".

cthulu2016 would argue that he's not a true Christian. Oh well. He'll keep calling himself one anyway.

132. Yes... it's the "Real Christians" argument again...

... the "Real Christians" argument is about the most common oblique defense of Christianity. Odd how everyone's idea of who constitutes the "real Christians" seem to include themselves. They can't all be right.

Who's going to be the judge of that? God? Well, he's gonna have to wait, and in the meantime it'd be nice if religious folks kept their beliefs out of our common state.

123. "Just because some Vatican people excluded it from the Bible...." Roman Emperor

Constantine stopped the persecution of Christians around 325 A.D. He also made
Christianity the official religion of Rome. Constantine had far more say, even in
religious matters, than the pope did. This continued on for several centuries, until
the popes gradually learned how to acquire more earthly power than the emperor.

These emperors had a lot to say about what was to be excluded from the Bible. You
can be sure they excluded and changed the text of most topics that were not favorable
to their maintaining power.

An example: After Jesus had cured a man who was born blind, the apostles asked him
Who had sinned, this man or his father, that he should have been born blind? Jesus
replied that neither had sinned....

Just go a little further into this question: If the man had been born blind, when did
he have the time to sin? Could he have sinned when he was in his mother's womb?
Obviously not. The only sensible explanation is that the apostles believed in
reincarnation, and they thought that he might have sinned in a previous lifetime, and
that his blindness was some sort of a retribution he had to make. Jesus did not correct
their question.

Apparently all direct references to reincarnation had been taken out of the Bible - only
the indirect ones that the censors did not catch were accidentally left in. Reincarnation would have meant that the emperors accepted the idea that their souls were not better than the souls of any average person. They, too, had to come back to earth again and again to have their experiences and learn their lessons. This, of course, had to be
eliminated. The emperors certainly thought of themselves as superior and wanted
their subjects to think so, too.

Then just imagine all the mistakes made when the Bible was translated into modern
languages.

To think how so many people insist on taking the Bible literally, word for word, is
beyond me.

124. It's beyond me, too.

I agree with what you said.

Regarding what I said about Peter, he says that those who reach heaven will be asked whether those who don't make it should burn. They decide that they should NOT.

IMO if that book was included it would take away massive power from the church. After all, sin is what they hold over people's heads. Not being Christian is what they he over people's heads. If everyone goes to heaven in he end, what need for this huge organization? Why not little groups of people discussing the meaning of life and the existence of a higher power?

152. "The only sensible explanation is that the apostles believed in reincarnation" - Nonsense.

The only sensible explanation is that God allowed the blindness so that Messiah could heal him. Clues to who Messiah is was that he would heal the blind, make the lame walk etc. All these things point to Yeshua as Messiah.

These signs were 1) out of his compassion and 2) to show the Jewish leadership that the Messiah had come, bring fullness to all that the TNK (Hebrew scripture) said about him.

166. Are you saying that you also know all the colloquialisms and idioms of that ancient Greek

dialect as it was spoken at that time? This is hardly possible.

I've remember an example, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle...."
There were several different meanings to the word, of which "camel" was one, and "a thick
thread" was another. The translator chose "camel." Which one would you have chosen?
This is only a mild example, but it's the only one I can remember of some article that I read
decades ago.

179. Camel is used because the greek word is kamilos. In the provided URL,

read the section Makes sense in Aramaic, where similar sayings are elsewhere in Judaism both with an elephant and camel.

Some excerpts (original source has Talmudic references):

Jewish Talmudic literature uses a similar aphorism about an elephant passing through the eye of a needle as a figure of speech implying the unlikely or impossible:
"They do not show a man a palm tree of gold, nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle."

But beyond impossibility is possibility with God for, elsewhere, a Jewish midrash records:
"The Holy One said, open for me a door as big as a needle's eye and I will open for you a door through which may enter tents and (camels?)"

In other words God only needs the sinner to open up just a crack for him and God will come pouring in and set up room for an oasis. God only needs a 'foot in the door', so to speak.

With this, camel is the appropriate translation. (I checked several Greek lexicons.) Messiah Yeshua is making allusion to things his Jewish audience would be familiar. The Talmud is the Jewish oral history. For your example, its not the case of a Greek word or idiom. It's more looking further back to the Jewish sources.

Thanks for providing this example. Going through this Greek exercise reminded me of my need to resume my Biblical Greek studies, from which I had taken a 2 month break.

131. The fact of the matter is that Christ himself would not agree with you

He would probably be ill for several weeks if he were to come back and look into what passes for Christian teachings.

It's been like this since at least the beginning of the fourth century, when the Nicene Counci9l retroactively started to excommunicate people.

When you say: "If this particular church does not hold that Christ is the only path to salvation then it isn't a Christian church... which is fine by me. Churches can hold whatever they want to hold."

Again, I have to say that calling themselves "Christian Churches" should require that the ministers of such places of worship actually read the New Testament, study the words and actions of one Jesus Christ, and not dwell so much on the Old Testament and the writings of St Paul.

41. +1,000!

53. I believe the idea is that if you sincerely accept Jesus as your Saviour, then De Facto

your accept his message or teachings and thus you're changed, transformed or reborn, you're no longer to be hateful or cruel.

This is not to say people don't fall short, but that's the idea.

I believe Bluerthanblue's post #46 along with the Beatitudes are the prime doctrine of Jesus.

Bluerthanblue (13,011 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

46. "When did we see you hungry...?"

Matt-25:33-40

The Son of Man will put the sheep (good people) on his right and the goats (bad people) on his left. "Then the king will say to those good people on his right, 'Come. My Father has given you great blessings. Come and get the kingdom God promised you. That kingdom has been prepared for you since the world was made. You can have this kingdom, because I was hungry and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was alone and away from home, and you invited me into your home. I was without clothes, and you gave me something to wear. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you came to visit me.' "Then the good people will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and give you food? When did we see you thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you alone and away from home and invite you into our home? When did we see you without clothes and give you something to wear? When did we see you sick or in prison and care for you?' "Then the king will answer, 'I tell you the truth. Anything you did for any of my people here, you also did for me.'" (ERV)

9. Really?

I read Matthew 25 : 31-46 (to cite just one example) quite differently. Is there someplace where "Christian doctrine" is all written down? I'm going to be on my denomination's Standing Committee for the next three years, and it would be really useful to have a handy compendium of "Christian doctrine."

14. If your group

manages to cherry-pick its way to eliminating acceptence of Christ as the sole possible method to avoid eternal damnation, or eliminates hell entirely, then you will have a much nicer religion to work with, but a highly atypical version of Christianity.

54. Who defines what the Bible is or is not?

There were councils held in the early 300's that allowed some books in and kicked some books out, but not all Christians ever agreed with those decisions, and different Christian sects include different books (the Catholic Bible is different from the Protestant Bible, for instance.) Even if there is some criteria by which "official" scripture can be clearly defined, there are so many different copies of the important texts (in different languages, with different sections added or missing), and so much variation in translation, that it impossible to know which version of a sacred text is "the" version sanctioned by God.

In addition, one can turn to historical practices of Christianity to justify how one chooses to view the Bible--whether one views it literally, metaphorically, or somewhere in between--whether one views it as the absolute word of God, the inspired word of man, or tales very clearly based in their culture and time, yet from which some kind of truth can still be glimpsed with reflection and personal interpretation. All of these choices come from a valid body of interpretation and historical analysis, and all can be justified on theological grounds. There is no "one" Christianity, just as there is no "one" Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, or any other religion or spiritual practice.

50. Do you know anything about the history of how Christian doctrine developed?

There have always been multiple interpretations of the divinity of Christ, of his status as a human or a god, of the existence or non-existence of Hell, the status of women and slaves, and which books were or were not included in Christian doctrine, among other controversies. Look up the gnostics and some of their more important texts, such as the gospel of Mary Magdelene (more than likely not actually authored by her, as many of the works attributed to Paul were not authored by him; claiming that one's work was authored of a famous religious or philosophical writer was not considered deceitful, but was a way of doing honor to that person, and claiming that your own writing was in keeping with their wisdom).

"Christian doctrine" was only solidified around the time of the reign of Constantine, as Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, and a specific type of Christianity that was compatible with the empire was supported, to the exclusion of all others, during a series of councils spanning centuries, such as the Nicene Council. While other Christian sects were oppressed after this point, they never entirely died out, and many of the modern alternatives to mainstream Christianity sprung out of them.

You are reifying religion--turning something abstract and amorphous into something concrete and clearly defined. To take another example, Theravada Buddhism is radically different from Zen, Pure Land, and Tantric Buddhism, which are all quite different from each other. They, like every sect of Christianity, evolve in different cultural, historical, and political realities, along different tracks, and in many cases contradicting each other--yet they are all fully Buddhist. Christianity is the same way. It is impossible for anyone with an accurate and comprehensive understanding of history, inside or outside, to define clearly what is or is not Christian.

75. As An Atheist

i have eliminated acceptance of Christ as the sole possible method to avoid eternal damnation and eliminated hell entirely. In fact, I have eliminated eternal damnation entirely. No cherrypicking involved.

145. excerpts from a sermon by Rev. John Shuck

OK, so it's just about the whole damn thing . . . but it's just that good

Good Friday? A Reflection
Good Friday?John Shuck

First Presbyterian Church
Elizabethton, Tennessee
April 6, 2012
Good Friday
Mark 15:1-47

****
Why are we so obsessed with the death of Jesus?

Dying was his reason for living.

Really?

Much of Christian theology has been used to induce guilt and shame. You are so bad that Jesus had to die on the cross. The bloodier and more painful the death serves to demonstrate the depth of your depravity. You deserve all that beating. But Jesus took it for you. That is default Christianity. I call it spiritual abuse.

Jesus had a life before he died. The things he did and the things he said were provocative enough to put him on the wrong side of the authorities. From the things people remembered that he did and said, he was critical of the authorities. He was critical of the religious authorities and of the political authorities.

That is what got him killed.

He challenged systems of authority that took advantage of widows, of the poor, and of the outcast. He created a movement. And it was threatening enough that those in power felt the need to stop him. Perhaps to make of him an example.

That is what got him killed.

He was on the side of people who were oppressed by the economic policies of the temple. He was on the side of people considered unclean and sinners by the religious.

That is what got him killed.

He is remembered for telling parables and stories that upset people. He used a phrase "kingdom of God." That phrase means little to us because we have tamed it. Most folks thanks to the theologians think it is another phrase for heaven, a place the true believers go when they die.

It is likely that it was a political statement. It was a social statement. It was a statement of hope. As opposed to the kingdom of Caesar, imagine what the kingdom of God is like. It wasn't just a fantasy, a story. It was a movement. This is the kingdom to live for, to work for, perhaps even to die for. It is a kingdom of justice and compassion. In this kingdom, in this political economy the hungry are filled with good things. Now let's make it so. That was Jesus’ message.

Jesus was about making changes in this world.

That is what got him killed.

He talked about compassion. He talked about moving beyond ethnic boundaries and divisions. He talked about forgiveness. Not something you go to the priest for or even to God for, but your neighbor. The neighbor is who we hurt, not God. The neighbor is the one from whom we need forgiveness. We get it as we give it.

Jesus worked to bring people together: Samaritan and Jew, Greek and Roman. He practiced an open table, rich and poor, male and female. He challenged unjust boundaries and rules.

That is what got him killed.

Dying was not his reason for living.

Living was his reason for dying.

For life, he died. For integrity, he died. For compassion, he died. For justice, he died. For change, he died.

He was in the way. He was in the way of progress. He was in the way of Rome. He was in the way of the religious authorities who had sold out their people to Rome. He was killed as were many just like him.

Jesus didn’t die of old age. He didn’t die of cancer. He didn’t get trampled accidentally by a runaway horse. Jesus was bullied to death. Not only Jesus, but thousands of people were tortured and executed methodically in a spectacle of brutality and control. Jesus was a victim of imperial terrorism.

There was and is nothing sacred and holy about the execution and torture of Jesus or of anyone. If anything, remembering the death of Jesus should summon us to honor life not death. It should give us the courage and commitment to speak out and not remain silent in the face of torture, execution, violence, injustice, and needless suffering around the world.

The Easter acclamation, “Christ is Risen!” meant what? I think it meant that they, the people, those who told and wrote the stories about Jesus had had enough. They had had enough of Rome’s bullying. They said,

“Every time we gather for a meal of bread and wine we will remember. We are Christ's body. Christ is alive with us. We will continue to remember and to resist. We will show hospitality to those who are victims of imperial bullying, to the outcast, to the slave, to the stranger. We will lean on and support each other. We will remember and tell the stories of the victims. And we will dream, hope, and work for the day in which the kingdom of God, the empire of God, the empire of justice and peace will be realized on Earth.”

Obviously, Christianity evolved and moved in all kinds of directions and embraced many different mythologies and interpretations, and some of them quite good and helpful. But it is important not to lose sight of our roots. The earliest interpretation of the death and resurrection of Jesus is this:

In Christ, Empire’s brutality is overcome by God’s justice.

I wear this cross around my neck to remind me whose side I need to be on.

Jesus' life was fast. Like Martin Luther King, they both died before reaching forty. But their lives burned with passion and fire. They burned out for compassion and justice.

Apparently, they believed that it is better to have burned out than never to have burned at all.

Whenever any of us stands up for those who are abused or put down or who suffer injustice from bullies big and small, we practice true religion.

We live in the example and spirit of Jesus.

Only if today helps us to live a life that matters can we dare call it Good Friday.

70. True, the Bible is not a book of love as many claim

Read the Old Testament and you will find many hateful and morally indefensible positions. If a person claims that the bible expresses good moral values I will show them some Bible verses that express support for stoning people to death for some pretty minor offenses, the Bible also says rape victims should be forced to marry their rapist. The Bible is a disgusting and hateful book that should be condemned not embraced, just because there are some parts that sound good does not mean we can ignore the violent misogyny promoted in other parts.

94. If you can find me a translation of the Old Testament that does not contain the hateful parts...

Then I would totally see your argument, but all the translations I have seen say very similar things they are just worded differently.

I would agree with you that there are some books of the Bible that are good, but until those books are seperated from the hateful books then I think we need to admit that parts of the Bible are morally reprehensible.

99. There are plenty of Christians who would agree with you on that.

Not everyone who uses the Bible looks at it as the literal, unimpeachable word of God (or really anyone if we're totally honest--even the most hardline fundamentalists will admit to the need for interpretation and consideration of culture and history if you press them on the specifics long enough). Many view it, or at least the Old Testament (or the Hebrew Scriptures, as many modern Biblical critics consider to be a less offensive term to modern-day Jews who still follow these texts), as a series of tribal stories rooted in their history and culture, which nevertheless contain portions that are inspirational and available for personal interpretation, through which glimpses of divine nature can be determined.

There are all kinds of things referenced in the Bible that are rarely talked about. For example, a female presence known as "Wisdom" is repeatedly referenced as an aspect of the divine; yet the dominant refrain has been that God is portrayed in Hebrew scripture as always and definitively male.

111. I like your thinking.

73. I think you just demonstrated how it may be true.

Depending on one's concept of Jesus. I am not a Christian, but Jesus represents love and compassion to me. Very cool guy, but nothing to do with a deity. This is one case when it is appropriate to criticize the messengers, not the message.

91. I disagree. In the story of the sheeps and the goats, Jesus most clearly says that on

the day of judgment, many people will call him 'Lord' and he will say he does not know them, while he will greet many as his own who say they do not know him. Why? Well, he says when he was in need, the first did nothing, and the second offered him assistance and comfort. The first says 'Lord, you did not come to me in need' and Jesus says 'Well, others did and they were all me, for I am the least among you, when I was in prison, you did not come to see me, when I was sick, you did not care for me, when I was hungry and thirsty, well, you get the picture. Now this other person who does not know me at all, he helped me when I came to him as a sick old poor person, and so he may not know me, I sure as hell know him, and he's coming with me, while you are off to the cheap seats.'
I paraphrase of course. So I can not attest to 'christian doctrine'. Clearly the teachings of the one called the Christ suggest that he takes strangers who are caring not 'followers' who are not kind to the least of us. I'd suggest that if the stories were true, then HIS opinion would sort of take the cake.

10. "Be not like the hypocrites!" - Jesus

11. What a nice sentiment

I don't give a damn whether it's Christian dogma or not as some believe. It does something very important, it opens a dialog between so-called liberal theists and atheists. There is nothing wrong with that.

15. It would be nice if The Beatitudes counted as much as the Ten Commandments

to those who push Christian values on the right:

Matthew 5:3-12New International Version (NIV)

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

24. If you want a profit there's always Deepak

25. I've read the entire Bible three times.

I've read the King James, Revised American Standard, and the New International Version. Nothing in there, except the Sermon on the mount, left any lasting impression on me. Some Psalms are worth remembering too. A Roman emperor cherry picked some ancient texts and said "this is the Bible", he did a really poor job of it IMO.

28. There are words Jesus spoke and then there is the rest of the Bible

He kind of overshadowed the rest of the book for me although I really dig Daniel and a few other OT chapters as well.

Perhaps my biggest deviation from modern interpretation is Revelations which is still for me a warning rather than an absolute. In my mental interpretation the time line can change based on prayer and changes in man's behavior towards God and the world. Obviously I am not in the main stream in my interpretation or beliefs.

105. Yes, a Pagan Emperor ...first codified the Bible in a Turkish City

in 325 AD...most Christians don't know about Nicea, Turkey. Emperor Constantine summoned the mass of bishops squabbling about Christianity because it was threatening the peace in The Empire. Look it up. He came up with the concept of The Trinity and told them to write it down as theology.

Then, a gay King of England...King James...pulled out most all positive references to women and left it the mysoginstic book that it is.

Don't get me wrong, The Beautitudes and the "red words" and yes, some of the Psalms, are priceleless and words/concepts to strive for. Other than a few other "red words" in the New Testament though, most is pretty much pick and choose. None of the New Testament writers, or at least we think are the writers, were contemporaries of Jesus.

158. Gay? That must have come as quite a shock to his queen and 8 children.

34. As a "Christian" and thus a follower of Christ

You would think they would take center stage. Sadly most of the "Christians" I meet are more concerned with OT judgment than they are NT forgiveness. It's much easier, more fun and way more profitable for them to hate and point fingers than it is to be charitable and loving.

judaism doesn't much care about what you believe; it cares more about your actions.
it's perfectly reasonable for a jew to be an atheist.

christianity, though, is a religion of faith. belief in god and jesus as christ is pretty much the definition of a christian.
actions are generally considered to follow from that belief, so i understand the earlier point about "hateful christians" being possibly a null set. if one truly believed, supposedly it would be impossible to hate. so a "hateful christian" would then really not be a christian at all, but rather a poser, a fraud, a hypocrite.

in that case, the sign reduces to a kind heathen being better than a hateful hypocrite.

47. As an atheist who lives in a society that is dominated by

people who claim Christianity, I welcome any message a church puts out that causes people to treat non-Christians better. Since I don't believe that any deities or other such supernatural entities exist, I can't comment on whether that sign is doctrinal or not. I can comment on a hope that it makes people who attend that church or see that sign might think. I approve of thinking, in general.

I've never seen much benefit come from attacking religious belief on its basis. I've seen much benefit come from encouraging respect for others, though. Frankly, I don't care what people believe in terms of religion. I care how they behave. If they behave well, then I'm for them. If they behave poorly, I'm against them. It is that simple for me.

We can mold god into anything we like since we invented him in the first place. It's not like we're constrained to objective reality or anything. And if there's a dispute, all we have to do is fight a war over it. The winners are right and the losers are dead.

89. Could not agree more. Thanks Pastor Tate!

98. atheist pudding

The responses from the kind atheists are all the proof this Christian needs of the efficacy of the Pastor's message. I believe the pastor is correct and in accordance with Catholic doctrine. From "Acts" we have "all those who respect God and act uprightly are acceptable to Him" and from John:"He who believes in me, though he has died, will live".

101. Thank you, Tom Tate for being a rational human being.

109. God is on our side?

How can God pick a side? I am amazed by sports teams/players, war leaders or any other side-choosers and how they can continue to plead for favors when they don't "win". Did God make a mistake? Were they not worthy, not pray hard enough?

What I notice is that some force keeps all live human hearts beating, blood flowing, digestive/neurological and breeding et al systems moving. None of us are able to do that on our own (we can screw it up) nor do we get up in the morning and pray to some god for permission to breathe or see or smell or any other automatic human function, etc. other than to be thankful to The Force. And it seems this godforce pretty much allows all genders, religions, languages, cultures, races, etc. to do same.

Just like gravity...it works pretty much for everyone. Same as the sun rising...regardless of clouds or other blockages. It still rises regardless of our opinion of it.

133. Does Mr.Tate have that in writing?

134. Great, except that it isn't true.

It's in the Bible: those who believe in God/Jesus, will live forever in the afterlife. Those who don't will suffer eternally once Judgment Day comes.

I'm an agnostic, by the way. I don't believe in anything the Bible says. But if you DO, if you ARE a Christian, you can't ignore that even Jesus (the peace-lovin' hippie who talked about turning the other cheek) said he come to bring the sword, to sow division between the True Believers and the Unbelievers. And the Unbelievers would suffer a horrible fate.

136. Hateful Christians hate atheists more than anything.

139. I understand the thrust of the message and agree with it in spirit but there are no gods

I find it astonishing that here in the twenty first century there are still many humans who think supernatural deities actually exist and believe any of a hundred bizarre accounts of how the gods (and we) came to be. It's horrifying.
http://www.godisimaginary.com

156. here are some funny ones

159. Jesus said lots of hateful stuff in the NT. You can be a hateful person and still be like Jesus.

Cussing out a fig tree for not fruiting out of season?

Saying "I come not in peace but with a sword"?

just a few examples from one of the Gospels. There are hundreds of examples like these:

MATTHEW

Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3: 10, 12

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17

Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30

Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14

Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19

"The children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12

Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21

Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32

Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). 10:14-15

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21

Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 10:28

Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24

Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20: 9, Dt.21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7

Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer "everlasting fire." 18:8-9

In the parable of the unforgiving servant, the king threatens to enslave a man and his entire family to pay for a debt. This practice, which was common at the time, seems not to have bothered Jesus very much. The parable ends with this: "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you." If you are cruel to others, God will be cruel to you. 18:23-35

"And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors." 18:34

God is like a rich man who owns a vineyard and rents it to poor farmers. When he sends servants to collect the rent, the tenants beat or kill them. So he sent his son to collect the rent, and they kill him too. Then the owner comes and kills the farmers and rents the vineyard to others. 21:33-41

"Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." Whoever falls on "this stone" (Jesus) will be broken, and whomever the stone falls on will be ground into powder. 21:44

In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn't have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and "cast him into the outer darkness" where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 22:12-13

Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. 24:37

God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 24:50-51

The servant who kept and returned his master's talent was cast into the "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." 25:30

Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41

170. It's the last idea that seems the most cruel.

I mean, gullibility as the one character trait that will save you from an eternity of pain?

And, the idea that you have a (modern) average of 72 years to achieve complete gullibility or suffer for...ever?

AND the idea that you must love an omniscient God who must have seen your damnation (along with the damnation of countless millions of other human beings) coming from the second he started the universe, but decided to start it anyway?

To paraphrase Hitchens, at least, before Jesus, you could die in peace, to be left alone.

...and celebrate the time God resorted to grisly human sacrifice to mitigate His own lack of foresight. Which, we can all agree is a step up from the genocide -- floods, plague, etc. -- that used to be His signature move.

Seriously, I love seeing atheists and the religious get along. People keep talking about how all major religions share a God concept (from poly- to mono- theistic....from hands-off to God-with-a-plan) and some sort of call to be good to one another. But, we forget that all of those "good" religious folk share that same call to be good to one another with the secular humanists who believe that the God concept is both unnecessary and a sort of vestigial, social/scientific appendage. Like the appendix.